Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Ignatios]

…continue third post today

anthony:

The one chair in which unity is maintained by all

Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen. a.d. 256.: 6. …But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; … and later on he says also….” And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and **unity of the Catholic Church, **such as Stephen(Pope of Rome) has now dared to make”…
in the 24th chapter Firmilian continues referring to Pope of Rome…”. For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa (371 A.D.):
“The memory of Peter, the Head of the Apostles, is celebrated; and magnified indeed with him are the other members of the Church; but [upon him] is the Church of God firmly established. For he is, agreeably to the gift conferred upon him by the Lord, that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church.”
(Alt. Or. De S. Steph. Galland. t. vi.)

Respond of the Greek Fathers to the Latins concerning some Quotes from Gregory of Nyssa, Given at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence.
“…Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err, , especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers.." The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: “if such was his idea,” and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: "we must view the general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (idia)."
In another word Saint Gregory is not infallible nor any one man is, besides what he said in your quotation above he didn’t say it Dogmatically if he did then it would have been obvious that he is contradicting the bible.

St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.):
“Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.”
(Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

I dont see anything about Rome or the Pope

 

[anthony022071]

My main problem is the value of an ecumenical council. For instance, perhaps there is held a council, and there are 400 bishops present, 250 decide one way and 150 vote another way. They appeal to the Pope, and the Pope chooses the 150 vote side.

Now what was the point of voting and discussing?

Indeed. If a majority of bishops vote in favor of a heresy,and the pope has authority over a council,then there is no point. Consider the Eastern councils that voted in favor of Arianism and Monophysitism.

Councils are called to get a consensus on orthodox doctrine or on disciplinary matters,but they don’t have the final authority on doctrine or on binding and loosing. The pope doesn’t do all the thinking and deciding on theological and disciplinary matters,and he does not always bring up the issues which need to be resolved,but he does have the final yes or no. The Eastern councils of the first millenium were called to settle theological and disciplinary matters in the Eastern churches,not the whole Church. Rome always had the orthodox faith and it had a more direct jurisdiction and influence upon the West than on the East,so there was no need for Western councils to condemn Arianism,Nestorianism,and Monophysitism,or to define doctrines regarding the person of Christ.

What I want you to do, is show me the value of an Ecumenical council, coming from a RCC view.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm

< What is an Ecumenical Council? By this, I specifically mean the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Why were they held?

Answer: They were political, imperial-sponsored events so as to poll the bishops of the Roman Empire to see what was, and was not, orthodox doctrine. But, was this a Traditional method for determining orthodoxy? No. Rather, it was Constantine’s way of finding out what Christianity taught. And, again, because he had political concerns. He was looking for a glue to hold his Empire together, so it was of monumental importance that all the bishops be in agreement. And, in this, remember Constantine’s situation: The Empire was overflowing with Christians, yet had problems with disunity. By embracing the Church, he assumed that he could fix this in one fell swoop. However, then Constantine found out – much to his surprise – that these Christians weren’t so “unified” after all (i.e., Arianism). And, if that was the case, he needed to find out if Christianity was really (as the orthodox Christians claimed) a universal phenomenon. Otherwise, his plan was pointless.

So, what the bishops taught was never important to the powers behind Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II. Rather, the driving force was what could be agreed on (in order to promote the “One Church, One Empire” agenda) just as it was at the illicit “ecumenical councils” :

Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism. All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them. >

 

[anthony022071]

…Continue

Now compare the above with the following:
Pope Gregory the GREAT (note, only 2 popes were called the Great and Damasus was not of them).

Was Gregory any less insistent upon papal primacy than Damasus? Pope Leo and Pope Gregory are both saints in the Orthodox Church,and yet they were both insistent upon papal primacy over the East,and they both wielded it strongly.

Pope Gregory:

“As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city.” (Lib. IX, Ep. 12)

“If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it [the Apostolic See]; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.” (Lib. IX, Ep. 59)

…Or one might say that they ignored him or they tried to preserve the Peace in the Church.

They certainly didn’t ignore his authority over the Council of Chalcedon,althought they tried to undermine his authority with canon 28.

Chalcedon on Pope Leo’s Tome:

“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!”

“For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio),

“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision [canon 28] by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

 

[anthony022071]

Where you are getting your conclusions from? Show me where does it say so???

rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

< What of the attitude of the Council Fathers toward Rome (apart from the question of Council presidency)? Canon 6 accords to Alexandria a metropolitan authority over Egypt, Libya and Persepolis, and the reason given for this is that “this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome.” 18 These words are perhaps somewhat obscure in their precise implications, but they do show that in some way Roman custom was regarded as normative for the wider Church, including the East. Furthermore, the canon is concerned with the normal mode of Church government in the ‘patriarchal’ areas of Alexandria and Antioch, and if the right of Rome to act as arbiter in extraordinary cases (involving accusations of heresy and the like) was not disputed at the time, there is no reason why it should have been mentioned in this context. The Roman synod of 485 states that the Nicene Fathers “referred the confirmation of things and the authority to the holy Roman Church,” 19 although there is no original documentary evidence of this. Constantine seems to have promulgated the creed and canons without seeking Roman confirmation; but quite apart from the fact that the Emperor’s attitude cannot necessarily be taken as a yardstick of accepted Christian orthodoxy at that time, his action proves very little, given the absence of the Council’s acts. If the Roman legates had made it clear on the Council floor that the end product was in accord with their mandate from Bishop Sylvester, Constantine may well have taken the attitude that there was no need for further confirmation. Indeed, shortly after Nicaea, we find Bishop Julius of Rome appealing to a “Canon of the Church,” as well as “custom,” against a synod of Bishops which ignored the authority of Rome. 20 Which “canon” he had in mind is not clear, but it seems most improbable that Sylvester, only a few years before, would have taken a contrary view to that of Julius, and felt content for the Nicene Council to make final decisions without in some way gaining his approval.>
Yes I still see the word “AMONG” and the THEOTOKOS never ceased to be a women or human being …Is the word “AMONG” Has the same meaning as “ABOVE”?

Well,Mary is certainly above all other women in her blessedness --she is the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven – and in her sinless nature.

Was given to Peter??? Boy you got yourself in trouble now with this one, see this is the result when you copy and paste without researching, and since you mentioned this one, it brings to my mind what Eusebius meant when he said in “The First Ruler of the Church of Rome” ” …”After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus Was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him…” I thought he was Ordained by Peter and not obtained it after Peter and Paul death? I am just wondering about this.hhhmmm.

Yes,he was ordained,and thereby he obtained the Chair of Peter.

Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400):

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.”

 

[anthony022071]

Was that a wish? Or you are in the state of denial after a shock? Infallibility of your own?…” I really doubt that he personally regards the Church of Constantinople as…” you said…Opinion? Again …I gave you fact from the “VATICAN RADIO” “The VOICE OF THE POPE AND THE CHURCH IN DIALOGUE WITH THE WORLD…”…??? This Vatican Radio Station Published your Pope’s Speech to the whole world !!!

The pope celebrates the Feast of St. Andrew with the Orthodox with a mind to fostering ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox,so it is not that suprising that he would mention what the Orthodox believe – that Andrew founded the see of Constantinople. It doesn’t mean he believes it himself. It is not a traditional Catholic belief,and not even his comment can make it a traditional Catholic belief or regarded as historically factual. He isn’t going to contradict that belief when he’s their guest and on their own turf. Pope John Paul 2 kissed the Koran in a spirit of ecumenical charity;does that mean he believes in it?

Now you are refuting your Pope, I will not answer to this since the argument now is between you and your Pope

That quote was from New Advent.

Are you kidding me??? I gave you the words of the most reliable man in your church(a church father of your church) that it was published by the most reliable source in your church and you still didnt accepted it,

Because it cannot be shown to be historically factual,and it is not a traditional Catholic belief.

 

[John214]

Hey Anthony, thank you for the straight answer!

Indeed. If a majority of bishops vote in favor of a heresy,and the pope has authority over a council,then there is no point. Consider the Eastern councils that voted in favor of Arianism and Monophysitism.

This makes me think that you take a stance that ecumenical councils truly are of little value.

Councils are called to get a consensus on orthodox doctrine or on disciplinary matters,but they don’t have the final authority on doctrine or on binding and loosing.

So, if I am reading this right, the only real reason to get a “consensus” is to make the others feel good?

The pope doesn’t do all the thinking and deciding on theological and disciplinary matters,and he does not always bring up the issues which need to be resolved,but he does have the final yes or no.

If this is true, then why did the Bishops vote? Why didn’t they just ask the Pope what he believed, and then that would settle it. If all the other Bishops even combined are not infallible but the Pope is, then I would trust the Pope over the rest in every situation.

Answer: They were political, imperial-sponsored events so as to poll the bishops of the Roman Empire to see what was, and was not, orthodox doctrine. But, was this a Traditional method for determining orthodoxy? No. Rather, it was Constantine’s way of finding out what Christianity taught. And, again, because he had political concerns. He was looking for a glue to hold his Empire together, so it was of monumental importance that all the bishops be in agreement. And, in this, remember Constantine’s situation: The Empire was overflowing with Christians, yet had problems with disunity. By embracing the Church, he assumed that he could fix this in one fell swoop. However, then Constantine found out – much to his surprise – that these Christians weren’t so “unified” after all (i.e., Arianism). And, if that was the case, he needed to find out if Christianity was really (as the orthodox Christians claimed) a universal phenomenon. Otherwise, his plan was pointless.

So in other words ecumenical councils are a foreign secular and unnecessary happening? That is really what this sounds like, but I want to make sure.

Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism. All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them.

Steve, I think these all qualify as examples, so maybe you can contribute now.

God Bless all

 

[steve_b]

[lots of snipping ]

just ask the Pope what he believed, and then that would settle it. If all the other Bishops even combined are not infallible but the Pope is, then I would trust the Pope over the rest in every situation.

Steve, I think these all qualify as examples, so maybe you can contribute now.

God Bless all

John,

I’m still thinking you want to dabble in the abstract. The reason I wanted you to give specifics, is to see if you can present real cases, real ecumenical councils that took place, where any of the absrtract examples you gave, happened.

then we can talk about THEM specifically, rather than hypotheticals.

 

[Evlogitos]

And the dance in circles continues.

Look, Vatican I (fourth session) specifically states that the ex cathedra definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves irreformable, completely apart from the consent of the church. Thus, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, his word is law, no matter who agrees with him and who doesn’t. Steve, for whatever inexplicable reason, seems to have difficulty plainly articulating this concept.

I agree with Steve that it’s better to deal in history than hypothesis, but yes, in theory, if the Pope declares something ex cathedra, then it’s the official, irreformable, and dogmatic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is part of the true definition of the Roman Catholic faith, even if every bishop, priest, deacon, and layman in Christendom disagrees with him.

Speaking from mine own biased Orthodox perspective, of course, the main reason one never sees the Orthodox papacy as the lone voice of Orthodoxy at an ecumenical council is because there is no authoritative doctrinal description in the Church without conciliarity. Since the papacy had a brilliant track record of Orthodoxy up 'til the Schism, it is perfectly obvious and to be expected that the papacy would be part of the conciliar support of ecumenical councils.

 

[steve_b]

And the dance in circles continues.

Look, Vatican I (fourth session) specifically states that the ex cathedra definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves irreformable, completely apart from the consent of the church. Thus, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, his word is law, no matter who agrees with him and who doesn’t. Steve, for whatever inexplicable reason, seems to have difficulty plainly articulating this concept.

:clapping: we have a specific reference. Not hypotheticals. ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6 now we have context. Now we can discuss.
Evlo:

I agree with Steve that it’s better to deal in history than hypothesis, but yes, in theory, if the Pope declares something ex cathedra, then it’s the official, irreformable, and dogmatic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is part of the true definition of the Roman Catholic faith, even if every bishop, priest, deacon, and layman in Christendom disagrees with him.

Obviously every bishop, priest, deacon, and layman in Christendom didn’t disagree
Evlo:

Speaking from mine own biased Orthodox perspective, of course, the main reason one never sees the Orthodox papacy as the lone voice of Orthodoxy at an ecumenical council is because there is no authoritative doctrinal description in the Church without conciliarity. Since the papacy had a brilliant track record of Orthodoxy up 'til the Schism, it is perfectly obvious and to be expected that the papacy would be part of the conciliar support of ecumenical councils.

Your bias is duely noted.

 

[Evlogitos]

Hence “in theory,” Steve. The fact that the whole of Christendom didn’t disagree with the Pope at that time cannot be construed to mean that any type of conciliar or ecclesial consensus is prerequisite to a binding and irreformable ex cathedra statement. Conceded?

(BTW, on the provided link, it amuses me that they cite as authority Constantinople 869, in spite of its repudiation as basically a latrocinium by the papacy itself… )

 

[steve_b]

Hence “in theory,” Steve. The fact that the whole of Christendom didn’t disagree with the Pope at that time cannot be construed to mean that any type of conciliar or ecclesial consensus is prerequisite to a binding and irreformable ex cathedra statement. Conceded?

“in theory” true. But “theory” for those who oppose the papacy, seems to always gravitate towards the abstract or absurd.
Evlo:

(BTW, on the provided link, it amuses me that they cite as authority Constantinople 869, in spite of its repudiation as basically a latrocinium by the papacy itself… )

newadvent.org/cathen/04310b.htm

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const4.html

 

[Evlogitos]

“in theory” true. But “theory” for those who oppose the papacy, seems to always gravitate towards the abstract or absurd.

Like, oh, the “theory” that Dioscorus being deposed meant Alexandria had no representation at Chalcedon?

newadvent.org/cathen/04310b.htm

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const4.html

Thank you for ignoring everything previously brought forth in this thread to establish the untenability of calling 869 the Eighth General Council.

 

[steve_b]

Thank you for ignoring everything previously brought forth in this thread to establish the untenability of calling 869 the Eighth General Council.

You were the one who brought up Vatican I, I merely responded
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3648451&postcount=309

YOU keyed in on Constantinople, which was mentioned in the docs of Vat I, which YOU used as the example.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3648478&postcount=310

Now you want to bust MY chops!!! sheesh

 

[John214]

Steve,

You have not addressed my point. While Vatican I may or may not be an example of what I am saying, the question is rather simple and the answer should also be rather simple.

You disregarded all of those councils which I posted from anthony’s reply which were examples. Why?

I am not dabbling in the abstract here. It is simple, either every single council is a fun game for Bishops to participate in to make them feel important, but in reality the decision of the council only rests with the Pope, or the Pope is a part of the ecumenical council and is subject to the same rules that would apply to any “Patriarch”.

I am asking you Steve, in the most straightforward way that I can, do the votes of the council count for anything more than a poll for the Pope to see how people feel? If so, explain.

Anthony gave a pretty clear answer that leaves me with the impression that a council is nothing more than a secular construction for the Emperor’s benefit. If you cannot give me a clear answer, then I am going to assume that you do not have one. (This is not a question about hypotheticals, I used the hypotheticals only to illustrate my question, my question does not need hypotheticals or even historical examples, it is a question about the nature of the Pope and “Ecumenical Councils”)

God Bless and I hope for a real answer!

 

[anthony022071]

John214:

This makes me think that you take a stance that ecumenical councils truly are of little value.

They do have great value. As I said,the pope doesn’t do all the thinking and deciding on theological and disciplinary matters,and he is not always the one to bring up issues that need to be addressed. The bishops and theologians do the hammering out of theological and disciplinary decrees as they see fit,and submit these decisions for the pope’s approval.

We have our creed from the councils,and the definition of God with the word “homoousios”. The pope and the Western church did not need a new creed or a conciliar definition of the substance of God at the time,the Eastern churches did. The bishops were responding to Eastern problems,namely Arianism. But their decisions were ratified by the pope,made ecumenically binding,and were taken up by the West.

Or think of the definitions and explanations of doctrine,and other decisions that were hammered out at Trent. The pope could not have done all of that by himself. And the bishops of the Church needed to have a consensus and show their unity and loyalty to the pope and the Church in order to deal with the threat of protestantism more effectively. Showing up counts for a lot with any organization.

So, if I am reading this right, the only real reason to get a “consensus” is to make the others feel good?

No. Councils also develop and officially define doctrines. Even the doctrine of papal infallibility itself.

If this is true, then why did the Bishops vote? Why didn’t they just ask the Pope what he believed, and then that would settle it.

That’s one way of settling matters.

Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, (d. AD 449), writing to Pope Leo I:
“The whole question [of Eutychianism] needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy… and so the convening of a council which is any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”

But that is not always possible or not enough to maintain unity and loyalty. The pope cannot always define a doctrine or supress a heresy or heal a schism with a single handedly.

If all the other Bishops even combined are not infallible but the Pope is, then I would trust the Pope over the rest in every situation.

The pope is more trustworthy over the rest in that he is infallible in pronouncing doctrines ex cathedra. But the pope doesn’t have a monopoly on right doctrine. If a body of orthodox bishops define an orthodox doctrine,it is no less true than if the pope first pronounced it. But the doctrine must have the ratification of the pope to be binding throughout the Church.
If the pope gives his ratification of the decisions of a council,then the council is trustworthy as well. The seven ecumenical councils were all ratified by the popes. That is what made them “ecumenical”. Among the bishops,only the bishop of Rome has authority throughout the Church.

So in other words ecumenical councils are a foreign secular and unnecessary happening? That is really what this sounds like, but I want to make sure.

No. The ecumenical councils were for the most part necessary.

 

[John214]

Anthony,

Thanks for responding! Some quick points.

“They do have great value. As I said,the pope doesn’t do all the thinking and deciding on theological and disciplinary matters,and he is not always the one to bring up issues that need to be addressed. The bishops and theologians do the hammering out of theological and disciplinary decrees as they see fit,and submit these decisions for the pope’s approval.”

It still seems a good deal less efficient, and it doesn’t explain the need for voting. Why don’t the councils hammer out doctrine and forgo voting simply submitting it to the Pope? Even if the Pope needs the council to “hammer out the details” he doesn’t need them to all vote to pronounce his decision, which trumps their votes anyways.

“No. Councils also develop and officially define doctrines. Even the doctrine of papal infallibility itself”

You do not really believe this do you? I thnk the doctrine of papal infallibility rests solely on its claim of divine origin. You may be saying that the councils simply “recognize” the infallibility that is already there, but still, the council would not be necessary, the Pope could just say, “I am infallible because I say I am infallible, and since I am infallible that means I am infallible” And in reality if he is infallible, then this would be far more powerful and meaningful, albeit more circular, than a fallible council making such a definition.

“But that is not always possible or not enough to maintain unity and loyalty. The pope cannot always define a doctrine or supress a heresy or heal a schism with a single handedly.”

Again, this is saying exactly, that the only real reason for the councils was to make Bishops feel better. In all reality, if the pope is infallible, then he can “define a doctrine and supress a heresy” singlehandedly, it just might not be that everyone agrees. Thus the councils are just instruments of making the other Bishops feel good and play nice. (I am not trying to be cheeky here, I am trying to state the obvious)

“If a body of orthodox bishops define an orthodox doctrine,it is no less true than if the pope first pronounced it. But the doctrine must have the ratification of the pope to be binding throughout the Church.”

Thus the Pope does indeed have a monopoly on right doctrine, and the votes of the council are altogether meaningless, except maybe to instill unity.

“No. The ecumenical councils were for the most part necessary.”

This didn’t answer my assertion that they were foreign secular developments, it just makes it sound like you believe they were necessary foreign secular developments.

Please tell me I am not going crazy here, but I have not heard a good argument against my case yet.

God Bless, and thanks for you response!

John

 

[anthony022071]

It still seems a good deal less efficient, and it doesn’t explain the need for voting. Why don’t the councils hammer out doctrine and forgo voting simply submitting it to the Pope? Even if the Pope needs the council to “hammer out the details” he doesn’t need them to all vote to pronounce his decision, which trumps their votes anyways.

If the bishops are going to hammer out doctrines or disciplinary canons,of course they’re going to vote on them. If they don’t sign on to their own decisions,how will the pope know if the council really assented to them?

“No. Councils also develop and officially define doctrines. Even the doctrine of papal infallibility itself”

You do not really believe this do you? I thnk the doctrine of papal infallibility rests solely on its claim of divine origin.

It was hammered out by the bishops of Vatican 1,based not only upon Christ’s promise to Peter,but also upon writings from the Church fathers and theologians,and on a study of the historical record of the popes,including Liberius and Honorius.

You may be saying that the councils simply “recognize” the infallibility that is already there, but still, the council would not be necessary, the Pope could just say, “I am infallible because I say I am infallible, and since I am infallible that means I am infallible” And in reality if he is infallible, then this would be far more powerful and meaningful, albeit more circular, than a fallible council making such a definition.

How many Catholics would have accepted the belief in papal infallibility before it was defined and ratified by the bishops of Vatican 1? No one can say that the bishops were forced by the pope to ratify it. Even the pope needs for the bishops to have faith in his teachings if those teachings are to be taken seriously by the laity.

The pope is infallible not because he says so,but because of Christ’s promise to Peter,and because a body of bishops in communion with Peter’s successor have said so.

 

[Mickey]

It was hammered out by the bishops of Vatican 1,based not only upon Christ’s promise to Peter,but also upon writings from the Church fathers and theologians,and on a study of the historical record of the popes,including Liberius and Honorius.

You mean the heretic Honorius.

How many Catholics would have accepted the belief in papal infallibility before it was defined and ratified by the bishops of Vatican 1? No one can say that the bishops were forced by the pope to ratify it. Even the pope needs for the bishops to have faith in his teachings if those teachings are to be taken seriously by the laity.

In spite of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father. This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the EarlyChurch.
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx

 

[anthony022071]

In spite of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father. This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the EarlyChurch.
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx

On July 16,1870,the vote was 451 in favor,88 against,and 62 in favor of some amendment. The minority who opposed left Rome and on July 18 the definition was voted on 533 to 2.

 

[Mickey]

In spite of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father. This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the EarlyChurch.
[orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx](Papal Infallibility Becomes Dogma)

Thus lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. A belief that could not possibly meet the Vincentian canon of Universality, Antiquity and Consent, and in fact a belief not universally shared by Catholics even within living memory of the Council that solemnly defined it.
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx